Delaware gazette and state journal. (Wilmington, Del.) 1883-1902, 1887-02-24

ne would consider was THIS. was this
building from any cause, either in its de.
sign or construction, defective2 Second,
Was its fall due TO such defect2 Third,
What the damages are you shall award
this plaintiff, If you shall award him any?
Mr.. Bird consumed the remainder of
the session in arguing upon the first of
these propositions.
In the superior court Friday morning Mr..
| Bird continued his argument before the
jury In the Giles case, finishing at 1.20 fol-
lowing 1t with "A recital of authorities. The
| Jury argument this morning was upon the
| points as to whether the falling of the
building was due to the defects In its de-
sign or construction, and what damages, II
any, should be allowed the plaintiff. With
regard to the effect OF the wind upon that
day, he declared that 1t had not ben shown
that that storm had extended one inch be-
i yond the boundaries OF the fallen building.
With regard to the question of damages he
suggested the sum Of $4,000 as compensa-
tory damages. He asked the court to
charge also that II the jury believes, from
all the evidence In the case, that the plain
tiff's injuries are due TO the negligence Of
the defendant, It will be justified In award
Ing the plaintiff primitive or exemplary
damages.
Mr.. Bates next addressed the jury. He
said: The counsel on the other side has
given you the benefit OF q very old chestnut
In saying we tried to keep this case from
you. My learned friend lnsinuated rather
gratuitously TINT we did not expect to get
that motion for a nunsuit when we made
1t. want to state here that never In my
practice made a motion or a suggestion dis
honestly to tho court. The question of
damages is ope that | will not discuss. It
Is one which you will never have TO con-
slider. will not discuss the subject of this
plaintiffs injuries or his sufferings. have
l.taken occasion to express my sympathy for
him and In spite of the counsePs declaration
that he doesn't want sympathy, l will not
he deferred from renewing my expressions
to that effect. This young man is practically
left at this time without any percepttble in
jury, except that one leg is three-fourths of
an Inch shorter than the other. From the
testimony of his physicians that is the sole
permanent injury to this young man that is
demonstrable. The foundation of this &C
tion is negligence. What is negligence2 Le-
gal negligence do not consider difficult to
be understood by the laity. The defence
rests on this fact simply-that to be guilty
of negligence the defendant must have
failed to exert such care and prudence in
| the transaction referred to as an ordinary
prudent man exercises Ia the prosecution
of his own business. That will be the start
ing point for you In this case. Not only did
the defendant do that, but they exer-
does not now take much evidence to show
that thnt wall was an unsafe wall. In the
light of "hlndsight," which is so much bet
ter than foresight, 1t does not take much
expert testimony to show that the wall was
too light. But you are not to look at the
transaction from this end, but to go back to
the other end, and put yourself in the place
OF the defendant when they designed and
constructed the wall. Mr.. Bates then re-
viewed the questions of knowledge and
means Of knowledge, and also the evidences
with regard to the dimensions and
construction Of the wall. With regard
TO the storm, he argued that there
was nothing unusual In gale of
that kind taking a narrow track, nor any
thing remarkable In the fact that 1t did no
other damage. Abiding to the action OF
Building Inspector Chandler, he argued
that that was confirmation Of the position
that there was no knowledge of danger on
authority to order the wall down II he con-
sldered It insufficient, and the fact that he
did not do SO removes from theshoulders OF
the defendant the liability Of negligence.
The court took recess until 3 O'Clock.
When court resumed at O'Clock Mr..
Bates presented to the court number OF
law points relative to the case. He was fol-
lowed by Mr.. Lore. who addressed the jury
for the defence. His address was finished
at 8 o'clock.
He said that the defendant company ls
not In court because 1t had refused to re-
spend to the dictates OF humanity. II has
paid every moral obligation laid at Its door
After the accident, the company did all In
ia power to alleviate his sufierinRs. 1t pro-
vided him with means to meet the necessi.
tlAs or life, and dil I'll thgs enyaHe S9rl
| b6 expected to do, until the piatntin satu y
can not take any more because my counse
forbids." The defendant sent physician
! and instructed him to do all in Ills power
{ for the plaintiff The defendant company
, did not believe that 1t were legally bound
to aid Giles, but only acted as It did becaust
of generous impulse to succor an fniuret
man in its employ The plaintiff asks you
to give all the damages that you can anc
then little extra for the lawyers. There
] | is no question but that the youni
mans leg was broken. But he die
\ not take the proper means to allow that lel
TO heat. Hehmself testified that he taugh
dancing, and that he fell on the ice severa
times during tho winter. Competent ply
: sicians have told you that they found nt
apparent injury except the undefinabl'
pain OF which Giles complains.
) The statement that one OF the plaiptlffi
. legs Ia three-quarters of an inch shorte
than the other, amounts to nothing, as vol
will not find any man whose legs, hands o.
| fingers are exactly of the same length. o
the building, he said 1t was only covering
for machinery, shed, such as farmer
would build to cover their grain. The de
, sendant had every inducement to erect
substantial building to serve 1t for years Il
come. The opposing counsel would no
, allow us to tell the value OF the machinerr
: which we desired to place In the building
| can tell you that this machinery was yer.
: valuable. Mr.. Davis and Mr.. Mendtnhal
, are experienced men. Mr.. Simpson
,gbf first be sugEfsffSa gsESlefsr fnSs but he bee mSd 5
: no further objection when the. plal
! | Was thoroughly explained to him, and whel
5 Mr.. Davis showed what little pressure wa
tC put on the sides. Give Mr.. Mendinhal
3 ar d Mr. Davis some credit for having com
: mon sense, and you can not believe tina
t they would hesitate for one moment TO OK
pond few hundred dollars extra TO erec
a this building which was to protect valuabl
i machinery. Then, was there negligence Il
putting up this buildtngP There was nc
the least suggestion or thought Of DANCE
Q at any time before the building fell. Th
only difference was one OF ..opinio
8 ab1ut the thickness of the walls. MI
/ spund to the vibrations of a foot-step, bu
q the testimony showed you that there wa
: moi; the least vibration. The defendant wa
not responsible for the accident. Whe
u mea who worked on buildings neve
dreamed of danger, how can you blame th
|
9 As an offset to the expert testimony OF tn
plaintiff, place the fact, that this gree
a wail stood for month or more, undergoiD
y All the strain of vibrations of walking an
y hatnmering on IL. The structure was NJ
q 40 ogextraordinary as 1t has been attempted
lproye to you as McLear u Kendall carria9
d factory proves. As to the cause OF the ia
+; OF the building, two causes were advance
= by Ahe opposing counsel, the Inherent dt
A fects Of the wall, being only nine incht
y thick. and the open end of the building
7; There was sufficient vent In the building
allow all air to pass through. The shore
were removed from the wall three or for
d days before 1t fell and after they were n
I. moved. the men walked over the wall, an
=, MT. Ghandler tells you that the wall was
y plutnb as a wall could be. The gent
ZEPHYR. the plaintiff tries to prov
l. could never have thrown the buildin
down, There was NO negligence on Il
r part of the defendant nor even conceI
N ton Of negligence. The building we
10 wrecked by q whirlwind. IL was the han
Of God. The, wall did not ifl cr9a
- coun sei try TO make you believe. The test
is mony shows that the building quiyere'
7, shool and then fell. 1t made an effort
Vi withstand the Storm but the tempest pr
l3 vailed, This seems to be an experiment
ct case, q test as to whether such cases can |
r. successfully carried through; and, II it I
- there will be no end Of 1t. II you give Il
e' nIaintiff a verdict, you will stir up whii
n wind Of litigation that might result In OF
ct social and political ruin, or perhaps chao
Mr.. GRAY then addressed the court {
lis some points of law In reply to the sugge
fions of the defendants counsel. At Il
a. reuualt Of the jury and with the eoncu
,v renee OF the court, he began MS argume
~ y, to the jury at 5.16 O'Clock and spoke l
Dy - - ana ouarfar hnurs Ho said th